no no they werent, the VMU was a souped up memory card for the DC, GBA had limited connectivity. Neither of those were the focus of their respective systems. How you can compare a system's main controller to a memory and a portable device is beyond me. YOu are grasping pretty hard

Once again a casual wouldn't take a review so seriously. 

Why would I pay for a console to play some low quality party game and why would I pay for what is essentially a rehash ?

Yet you continue to make judgements about casuals when you have clearly shown a lack of understanding over the course of this thread. Your understanding about casuals is irrelevant for the most part and should not be taken seriously. 

How do you know that those games didn't change in quality ? 

Just because they weren't the focus doesn't mean they didn't try to make it a selling point of the console and that especially goes for nintendo naively thinking that GBA connectivity was going to save the gamecube. FYI GBA to gamecube connectivity was pretty extensive for the most part. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_GameCube%E2%80%93Game_Boy_Advance_link_cable

Having content access and second screen crap ? Oh wow that reminds of something pretty similar that ends with a U.

So basically your premise is that Wii Sports Club, Nintendogs + Cats, Brain Training 3DS, Wii Fit U, Nintendo Land, Just Dance 2014, Game & Wario, are of such low quality compared to Wii Sports, Nintendogs, Brain Training, Wii Play, Wii Fit, Wario Ware: Smooth Moves, that they've caused casuals to go elsewhere? 

Sorry, but if that's basically your point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. The quality of these types of games has remained pretty much even (probably gotten a bit better actually, Wii Fit U is a better work out than the first Wii Fit, hands down for example, the puppies in Nintendogs + cats are even cuter with the better visuals and you have cats too). 

Every conversation I have with friends who are of the casual ilk about Wii U basically begins and ends with "but I already have a Wii ...". 

Fact is Nintendo may be "that guy" in a movie that comes across a treasure, get a little too cocky, but really it's something that's way out of his league, and he ends up getting shot in the back for it like 30 seconds later. Just because Nintendo got there first doesn't mean they were entitled to have it forever. 

This is a market that Apple was made to dominate, Nintendo never had any chance ... iOS/Android gaming simply fits the casual gaming audience better than any game console ever could. Wii was nice. But iPhone/Android is simply better for that audience. A whole "game console" devoted to just gaming is honestly overkill for most casuals. All they want is to to play maybe 10-20 minutes every 3-4 days or kill some time on the train ride to work ... $300 for a console and $50 games is an antiquated concept to them. $1 games? Can't beat that (unless it's free, which iOS/Android also have). 

Once upon a time the VHS was the preferred format of watching movies and renting from Blockbuster was how you watched movies. Things change, technology changed, people got a taste of more convienant options and never looked back. It doesn't mean physical movie mediums got worse -- Blu-Ray is miles superior to VHS or DVD, even, it's just not as popular today because it's not as well suited to what a lot of people want. 

You really don't understand that "software sells hardware", eh ? If the WII Us games were equal in quality compared to the WII then why is it selling less than ? You have to understand that casuals will also demand quality out of a game too or otherwise it will not get attention from us. Why do you think GTA V is the best selling game on the PS360 ? It's because casuals like us know that rockstar and take two interactive are putting an insane amount of effort to making a good game such as GTA V and that is evidenced by the fact that they spent over $250 million of developing the game.

Actually I think "software sells hardware" is a blanket term that really doesn't describe anything well. 

First off, most game platforms have plenty of good games. More than the average person even has time to play on. 

Gamers make a big fuss about this term because romanticize this notion of "the best games should sell the most systems". It's merit based. It's a nice fuzzy blanket of an idea. Work hard on a game, make "teh awesomest game evar!" and you should be rewarded with great sales. 

Except it's a pretty naive concept too, just like people who think "nice people" don't have bad things happen to them or bad people never prosper. Real life is cruel and random and chaotic. 

How well a game sells can definitely depend on the mood of the market. Where are the demographics? What role/audience does this game fill?What's the trend? 

Quality is one of *many* factors. If quality was everything then the top 10 selling games every year should be the top reviewed games, but we know that's pretty much never the case. Madden NFL would outsell the greatest Metroid game ever made. Because of audience differences.

I've followed the industry for many years and seen many great games "fail" to sell software. Metroid Prime "failed" to sell the GameCube even though many people agreed that was the best game of its release year. Dreamcast "failed" but it certainly wasn't for a lack of high quality software.  

simple really, when the wii came out, it had something that was never been done before on home consoles, motion controls that were actually fun to play, and people went crazy over, it was lighting in a bottle, we are in differnt times now where motions controls are played out now on consoles.

Exactly. It happens in the music business, it happens in the publishing/literature business (no, Harry Potter is not the greatest book ever written), it happens in the movie business ... why people act like the game business is completely different is laughable. 

The quality of a game can help it's overall case to find a market, but in no freaking way is it the sole arbiter of anything. 

Wii Sports probably isn't even one of the 50 highest quality games Nintendo's ever made. 

50 something games out of how many GC games, would call that extensive

Lool pal, don't lecture me on being "social". That's a downright hilarious statement coming from ANY gaming nerd. And that's what anyone who spends plenty of time on internet gaming forums qualifies as. Besides, you're not even using the word social in any meaningfully applicable context, so trying to use it as some clever way to take a jab at me, means nothing.

Secondly, I was stating what the definition of terms USED to be, IE most likely before your time. If you don't remember or weren't old enough to know any different, that's not my fault. These more recent "hardcore" and "casual" terms applies to games and gamers, as I said, is silly, immature, and pointless. It reeks of a bunch of nerds wanting gaming to be "their thing", not for a bunch of "damn casuals", as well as curious smell of sadly misplaced macho-ism. The notion that "harder games equals better games" is not only patently false on it's face, because "good" is subjective, and everything is a case by case basis, but it's also sadly misguided, because some of the best times you can have are with games that are quote-unquote "easy". Game difficulty means nothing. If some people prefer it to be higher, good for them. If some prefer it to be lower, good for them. That doesn't merit anyone deserving your stupid use of labels.

The original definitions of those already tired and trite terms, were better suited to the conversation at hand, as well as more accuate. Period.

Good day.